Seabiscuit is just plain fantastic. I saw an interview on the author Laura Hillenbrand, and was fascinated by the story she researched about . To quote the website about the story: "In 1938, a year of monumental turmoil, the number one newsmaker wasn't Franklin Roosevelt, or Adolf Hitler. It wasn't even a person. It was an undersized, crooked-legged racehorse owned by a bicyle repairman-turned-automobile magnate, trained by a virtual mute mustang breaker, ridden by a half-blind failed prizefighter"
While Microsoft has released an article providing details about the vulnerability, the company is yet to provide a patch.
I hope this become a trend and attitude among the Open Source community. I must admit that I've been a Microsoft-hater for years, but over time I found that people are really put off by anti-corporation sentiments. I suppose it makes sense in a way; If I invested thousands in a technology for my business, I wouldn't want people telling me "Aw man! You got totally taken! Windows is total crap!"
If the Open Source community begins patching Windows before Microsoft, not only does it help consumers deal with problems they can't solve, but it bring honor and respect to the Open Source community. Then when people consider Open Source, they're more likely to conclude that Open Source programmers are more competant than corporate programmers.
It's a win-win-lose. Open Source wins, Consumers win, and Microsoft loses. Which is what I wanted in the first place.
A: No, you don't. Not that Microsoft isn't loathsome, but there was a hacker culture long before Microsoft and there will still be one long after Microsoft is history. Any energy you spend hating Microsoft would be better spent on loving your craft. Write good code -- that will bash Microsoft quite sufficiently without polluting your karma.
The Windows Core Operating System Division (COSD), within the company's Platforms Group, will be responsible for the core OS platform, including development, program management and testing,
Is it just me or does it strike anyone else as being odd that Microsoft didn't have a group like this in the first place? I shudder to think what kind of development has been going on in there for the last 10 years. (I found the insight shared by a former Microsoft developer in "Barbarians Led By Bill Gates" was especially enlightening. I guess it's a company that hasn't really changed a whole lot)
...my point is that Linux has 64-bit support and it has it now. Linux and AMD are a natural partnership.
What's needed is a killer game that runs on Linux-64. The must-have toy will drive Linux faster and further than any business app could. It's the reason I know most people overspend on a PC, so they can play the latest and greatest games.
Intel's known this for years. That's why they give early release processors to the top game manufacturers so that when the new processor hits the street, there's software that'll shine with it.
I emailed the author, and he took the time to respond. Here's the original and reply (my name changed of course):
>Message-----From: [ridglelift] >[mailto:[ridgelift's email]] >Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 4:37 PM >To: Ulanoff, Lance >Subject: Flamebait Article > > "How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite? Hmm. Suddenly it's gotten pretty quiet around here." > >It got pretty quiet because you didn't bother to include your email >address or the ability to leave comments about your article: >http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/ ZDM/mac_vu lnerablility_pcmag_031211.html > >Of course, you'll be happy to know that your article got picked up by >Slashdot, so millions will read your prose. Enjoy your 15 minutes. > >[ridgelift] >I don't own a Mac.
Actually, we love when people respond to our opinion columns, but our content partner ABCNews.com unexpected picked up my column off the PCMag.com Website and did not include our regular discussion link. You can join the fun here:
Increasing and expanding the levy is a small yet symbolic attempt at compensating artists and record companies for widespread piracy, the CPCC argues.
I used to collect pirated music, but after awhile my conscience got the best of me, due in part to the ads they run up here. If they decide to put these hikes in place, I have to ask myself "If they're treating me like a criminal, why bother being honest?"
Assuming that people are guilty only lowers the moral expectations of a culture. A "symbolic" gesture as they call it is a real actual cost; nothing symbolic about that. Soon they'll be slapping tariffs on videos, DVD's, satellite and any other digital content because - sheesh! We _know_ you're all just a bunch of dirty thieves!
What they should do is keep up the ad campains - those work.
I could point out several other inelegant hacks now employed in Unix that are more elegantly achieved in modern operating systems. But my point is this: Sitting around wallowing in the dark ages of computing because "it has worked well up until now" is no way to improve the state of the art in software. And there is a Long, Long way to go.
This is a very old arguement that isn't going to be resolved here. Bottom line: we're talking about os vulnerabilities here, and my reasoning is sound. There may be a better way, but Windows is not it.
I take issue with your statement that Unix design is more elegant. I feel that NT is a wonderful, modern, design, with inherently more built-in security features than BSD or Linux variants.
Unix is a 35 year-old design that has stood the test of time _because_ of its elegance. It's based on 6 commands (open, close, read, write, fork and exec), takes an "everything's a file" approach, and relies heavily on small, reusable componets that are easier to fix and isolate than large monolitic code. The complexity if Unix likes in the mixing of those simple pieces.
Think of it as the difference between Playdough (Windows) and Lego (Unix). Windows is like a big lump of playdough. Sure it's pliable in the beginning, but over time it hardens into a big, unusable clump that needs to be tossed (reloaded). Unix on the other hand is like legos. Its modular design lends itself to be mixed and matched into unlimited configurations.
When it comes to security, it's easier for coders to get their brains around smaller, more manageable code. Windows is so big and unwieldly, they're going to have to do a fourth rewrite if they ever hope to build something that's even close to being secure. Why else has Microsoft been promising security for almost two years since they announce "Trustworthy Computing" and yet they're worse off than they've ever been.
Like I said in the original post, next month we'll see a whole slew of major new problems with Windows, and Mac and the other Unix variants will probably be free from any major known flaws. Just like we have for years.
But the mindlessly superior retort is always the same, "No, it's because the Apple OS does not have the same holes as Windows. OS X is just a better operating system."
Whatever. All OSes have their inherent problems, but next month, when Microsoft racks up another suit of deathly insecure vulnerabilities, OS X will probably be fixed and free from defects for another couple of months.
I'm not a Mac fanatic, but it's because OS X is based on Unix, and Unix is more elegant in its design that gives OS X its better security.
If their bandwidth is consumed, then any servers nearby will also be inaccessible. That is www.sco.com has the IP address of 216.250.128.12 and ftp.sco.com has the IP address of 216.250.128.13 so the two servers are side by side, probably even on the same physical network hub/switch.
The ftp server seems inaccessible now. Maybe someone at SCO clued in "Joe! You forgot to unplug the FTP server! Quick, grab that cable..."
Maybe Valerie from The Princess Bride sais it best: "Liar! Liar! Liiiiaaaaaar!"
And that article was written November 29th, which was almost two weeks ago. So if you wanted to launch a virus that takes advantage of one or all 7 of those defects, rest assured Microsoft won't do anything about it for at least another month.
So, they have a reason for it to be released, but they don't actually know why or how it got released... so... maybe 'they haven't got a clue' is a bit of overstatement, but they certainly don't have the whole clue.
I meant the comment as a double entendre. Not only are they clueless as it pertains to issuing patches for their products, but Microsoft is simply clueless when it comes to security as a whole (aka www.trustworthycomputing.com). I mean seriously! Two years of shouting how serious they are about security, and they're scheduling when patches will be released?! Did anyone expect any better?
The same patch was sent out again via the Windows update service on Tuesday night. The company is still investigating why and how the patch was reissued.
Too bad Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley wasn't alive today. "Frankenstein" could be re-written as a terrible monster bent on world domination that in order to survive must feed on a never-ending stream of patches.
"If the Linux community _really_ wants to invade the desktop space, we need some killer games."
True. But what we need even more is a killer Linux-exclusive game. Sadly, though, no company that attempts it will survive for more than a couple months past release
(wow, we're so far offtopic I can't get a radar fix on the original discussion! Let's see...ah! A 64-bit Emachine with Linux can make buying the machine now instead of running Windows 64-bit later in the future...there we go...mod me up:-)
Maybe the Mac is the answer. If companies would ship Transgaming's WineX then all the Mac OSX users can play PC games without further development. And _also_ would include Linux as well.
Microsoft, which released a beta version of the 64-bit Windows XP for Athlon 64 in September, has promised to ship the final version of the operating system in the first quarter of 2004. AMD has said several other companies are developing 64-bit games and other applications for its chip as well.
Of course Linux has been able to run on 64-bit platforms for quite some time now. If the Linux community _really_ wants to invade the desktop space, we need some killer games. Games have always been the reason why people spend way too much for a new PC. It's not what the public needs, it's what they want, and games help justify the expense.
This post may seem a bit off-topic, but I though the quote from the article which mentions Windows 64 and games in the same breath was worth pointing out.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the rush of wind you just heard was the sound of SCOX stock deflating. Please brace yourself for the wailing and knashing of teeth of the SCO Group and their investors, followed by the lynching of Darl McBride. Torches and pitchforks will be available in the main lobby.
Critics have speculated that the high contingency fee suggests that SCO, in suing Linux users, is trying to pump up its stock prior to selling it, an action that would reward its lawyers handsomely.
Of course they're trying to pump up the stock! Without Darl's henchmen..uh..lawyers guaranteed a huge payment for the sale of the company, they're sunk.
The full quote from the Bible actually says that "...the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) The words "the love of" make a huge difference; money itself is not the problem, but rather the love of money.
Good point. I wish I could update my post. Hopefully the gist of the point I was making is still communicated.
I'm a full-time writer, and I've been living off savings for the past eighteen months writing a new book. Thanks to copyright, I can reasonably expect to earn enough money once my book is published to stay afloat financially, and to tackle additional projects.
I agree. I'd imagine a lot of the "profit is bad" comments come from the teenage populous. I'm not trying to discriminate against age, but I used to think money was the root of all evil when I was younger. When I turned 20 and wanted to get married, it became apparent to me very quickly that no woman wanted to marry a guy who couldn't support a family. I then checked the "root of all evil" quote and found it was from the Bible, and it actually says "money is the root of all kinds of evil" not "all evil".
If you still need convincing, go to your local library and check out "Just for Fun" by Linus Torvalds. In it he does a pretty good job of explaning the pros/cons of IP rights in the latter part of the book. For those of you who've moved past your aversion towards capitalism, you can go to a bookstore and buy it instead, like I did.
Gotta run. I'm 34 now, married, and my wife and son need me to spend some time with them:-)
...on Friday, The SCO Group postponed filing its fourth-quarter earnings report until December 22. The reason: To allow time to hammer out the details of its $50 million private placement.
While the company insists this would not affect its prior guidance for revenues of $22 million to $25 million, it does seem strange that a public company would have problems with what looks to be a relatively routine process. For short sellers, this is a textbook clue that there may be internal disarray or perhaps, even some finagling.
I guess today's post by Linus will also help investors get out while the gettin's good.
It undoes much of the damage caused by copyrights, which might have been bearable 25 years ago when the biggest issues were cassete tapes and xerox machines, but in the information age will just not work.
Then what do you propose? I want something to protect my work, and allow me to profit from it whether that be financial gain, street cred' from my peers, or any other profit motive.
I used to use smoothwall, but switched to the forked project IPCop. Some of the original developers forked away from smoothwall because of the founder's desire to mix open source with a business model that conflicted with the project. I was having problems with smoothwall and updates, which prompted me to switch to IPCop. I've been happy ever since.
Slashdot Mirror
Seabiscuit is just plain fantastic. I saw an interview on the author Laura Hillenbrand, and was fascinated by the story she researched about . To quote the website about the story: "In 1938, a year of monumental turmoil, the number one newsmaker wasn't Franklin Roosevelt, or Adolf Hitler. It wasn't even a person. It was an undersized, crooked-legged racehorse owned by a bicyle repairman-turned-automobile magnate, trained by a virtual mute mustang breaker, ridden by a half-blind failed prizefighter"
The movie is great. Rent it, you'll love it.
While Microsoft has released an article providing details about the vulnerability, the company is yet to provide a patch.
I hope this become a trend and attitude among the Open Source community. I must admit that I've been a Microsoft-hater for years, but over time I found that people are really put off by anti-corporation sentiments. I suppose it makes sense in a way; If I invested thousands in a technology for my business, I wouldn't want people telling me "Aw man! You got totally taken! Windows is total crap!"
If the Open Source community begins patching Windows before Microsoft, not only does it help consumers deal with problems they can't solve, but it bring honor and respect to the Open Source community. Then when people consider Open Source, they're more likely to conclude that Open Source programmers are more competant than corporate programmers.
It's a win-win-lose. Open Source wins, Consumers win, and Microsoft loses. Which is what I wanted in the first place.
ESR's right in his article "How to Become a Hacker"
Q: Do I need to hate and bash Microsoft?
A: No, you don't. Not that Microsoft isn't loathsome, but there was a hacker culture long before Microsoft and there will still be one long after Microsoft is history. Any energy you spend hating Microsoft would be better spent on loving your craft. Write good code -- that will bash Microsoft quite sufficiently without polluting your karma.
The Windows Core Operating System Division (COSD), within the company's Platforms Group, will be responsible for the core OS platform, including development, program management and testing,
Is it just me or does it strike anyone else as being odd that Microsoft didn't have a group like this in the first place? I shudder to think what kind of development has been going on in there for the last 10 years. (I found the insight shared by a former Microsoft developer in "Barbarians Led By Bill Gates" was especially enlightening. I guess it's a company that hasn't really changed a whole lot)
...my point is that Linux has 64-bit support and it has it now. Linux and AMD are a natural partnership.
What's needed is a killer game that runs on Linux-64. The must-have toy will drive Linux faster and further than any business app could. It's the reason I know most people overspend on a PC, so they can play the latest and greatest games.
Intel's known this for years. That's why they give early release processors to the top game manufacturers so that when the new processor hits the street, there's software that'll shine with it.
I emailed the author, and he took the time to respond. Here's the original and reply (my name changed of course):
/ ZDM/mac_vu lnerablility_pcmag_031211.html
>Message-----From: [ridglelift]
>[mailto:[ridgelift's email]]
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 4:37 PM
>To: Ulanoff, Lance
>Subject: Flamebait Article
>
> "How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite? Hmm. Suddenly it's gotten pretty quiet around here."
>
>It got pretty quiet because you didn't bother to include your email
>address or the ability to leave comments about your article:
>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech
>
>Of course, you'll be happy to know that your article got picked up by
>Slashdot, so millions will read your prose. Enjoy your 15 minutes.
>
>[ridgelift]
>I don't own a Mac.
Actually, we love when people respond to our opinion columns, but our content partner ABCNews.com unexpected picked up my column off the PCMag.com Website and did not include our regular discussion link. You can join the fun here:
http://discuss.pcmag.com/pcmag/start/?msg=32413
Increasing and expanding the levy is a small yet symbolic attempt at compensating artists and record companies for widespread piracy, the CPCC argues.
I used to collect pirated music, but after awhile my conscience got the best of me, due in part to the ads they run up here. If they decide to put these hikes in place, I have to ask myself "If they're treating me like a criminal, why bother being honest?"
Assuming that people are guilty only lowers the moral expectations of a culture. A "symbolic" gesture as they call it is a real actual cost; nothing symbolic about that. Soon they'll be slapping tariffs on videos, DVD's, satellite and any other digital content because - sheesh! We _know_ you're all just a bunch of dirty thieves!
What they should do is keep up the ad campains - those work.
I could point out several other inelegant hacks now employed in Unix that are more elegantly achieved in modern operating systems. But my point is this: Sitting around wallowing in the dark ages of computing because "it has worked well up until now" is no way to improve the state of the art in software. And there is a Long, Long way to go.
This is a very old arguement that isn't going to be resolved here. Bottom line: we're talking about os vulnerabilities here, and my reasoning is sound. There may be a better way, but Windows is not it.
Read the thread before you start shooting.
I take issue with your statement that Unix design is more elegant. I feel that NT is a wonderful, modern, design, with inherently more built-in security features than BSD or Linux variants.
Unix is a 35 year-old design that has stood the test of time _because_ of its elegance. It's based on 6 commands (open, close, read, write, fork and exec), takes an "everything's a file" approach, and relies heavily on small, reusable componets that are easier to fix and isolate than large monolitic code. The complexity if Unix likes in the mixing of those simple pieces.
Think of it as the difference between Playdough (Windows) and Lego (Unix). Windows is like a big lump of playdough. Sure it's pliable in the beginning, but over time it hardens into a big, unusable clump that needs to be tossed (reloaded). Unix on the other hand is like legos. Its modular design lends itself to be mixed and matched into unlimited configurations.
When it comes to security, it's easier for coders to get their brains around smaller, more manageable code. Windows is so big and unwieldly, they're going to have to do a fourth rewrite if they ever hope to build something that's even close to being secure. Why else has Microsoft been promising security for almost two years since they announce "Trustworthy Computing" and yet they're worse off than they've ever been.
Like I said in the original post, next month we'll see a whole slew of major new problems with Windows, and Mac and the other Unix variants will probably be free from any major known flaws. Just like we have for years.
But the mindlessly superior retort is always the same, "No, it's because the Apple OS does not have the same holes as Windows. OS X is just a better operating system."
Whatever. All OSes have their inherent problems, but next month, when Microsoft racks up another suit of deathly insecure vulnerabilities, OS X will probably be fixed and free from defects for another couple of months.
I'm not a Mac fanatic, but it's because OS X is based on Unix, and Unix is more elegant in its design that gives OS X its better security.
If their bandwidth is consumed, then any servers nearby will also be inaccessible. That is www.sco.com has the IP address of 216.250.128.12 and ftp.sco.com has the IP address of 216.250.128.13 so the two servers are side by side, probably even on the same physical network hub/switch.
The ftp server seems inaccessible now. Maybe someone at SCO clued in "Joe! You forgot to unplug the FTP server! Quick, grab that cable..."
Maybe Valerie from The Princess Bride sais it best: "Liar! Liar! Liiiiaaaaaar!"
What if a highly critical bug is discovered tomorrow, something big enough that several exploits are in the wild by next week? Will they release a patch then, or will they stick to their
Already there:
A CHINESE RESEARCHER has discovered seven new security holes in Internet Explorer
And that article was written November 29th, which was almost two weeks ago. So if you wanted to launch a virus that takes advantage of one or all 7 of those defects, rest assured Microsoft won't do anything about it for at least another month.
And they claim there's nothing to worry about? I think the title of this article sums it up:
Microsoft cerebrates fifteen years of poor security, which by the way is an interesting read.
So, they have a reason for it to be released, but they don't actually know why or how it got released... so... maybe 'they haven't got a clue' is a bit of overstatement, but they certainly don't have the whole clue.
I meant the comment as a double entendre. Not only are they clueless as it pertains to issuing patches for their products, but Microsoft is simply clueless when it comes to security as a whole (aka www.trustworthycomputing.com). I mean seriously! Two years of shouting how serious they are about security, and they're scheduling when patches will be released?! Did anyone expect any better?
And that folks is why we laugh at Microsoft.
Lest we forget...
www.trustworthycomputing.com
"The Reason? They haven't got a clue."
Double Entendre: a word or expression capable of two interpretations
aka: Microsoft is clueless.
The same patch was sent out again via the Windows update service on Tuesday night. The company is still investigating why and how the patch was reissued.
Too bad Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley wasn't alive today. "Frankenstein" could be re-written as a terrible monster bent on world domination that in order to survive must feed on a never-ending stream of patches.
"If the Linux community _really_ wants to invade the desktop space, we need some killer games."
:-)
True. But what we need even more is a killer Linux-exclusive game. Sadly, though, no company that attempts it will survive for more than a couple months past release
(wow, we're so far offtopic I can't get a radar fix on the original discussion! Let's see...ah! A 64-bit Emachine with Linux can make buying the machine now instead of running Windows 64-bit later in the future...there we go...mod me up
Maybe the Mac is the answer. If companies would ship Transgaming's WineX then all the Mac OSX users can play PC games without further development. And _also_ would include Linux as well.
Microsoft, which released a beta version of the 64-bit Windows XP for Athlon 64 in September, has promised to ship the final version of the operating system in the first quarter of 2004. AMD has said several other companies are developing 64-bit games and other applications for its chip as well.
Of course Linux has been able to run on 64-bit platforms for quite some time now. If the Linux community _really_ wants to invade the desktop space, we need some killer games. Games have always been the reason why people spend way too much for a new PC. It's not what the public needs, it's what they want, and games help justify the expense.
This post may seem a bit off-topic, but I though the quote from the article which mentions Windows 64 and games in the same breath was worth pointing out.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the rush of wind you just heard was the sound of SCOX stock deflating. Please brace yourself for the wailing and knashing of teeth of the SCO Group and their investors, followed by the lynching of Darl McBride. Torches and pitchforks will be available in the main lobby.
Critics have speculated that the high contingency fee suggests that SCO, in suing Linux users, is trying to pump up its stock prior to selling it, an action that would reward its lawyers handsomely.
Of course they're trying to pump up the stock! Without Darl's henchmen..uh..lawyers guaranteed a huge payment for the sale of the company, they're sunk.
The full quote from the Bible actually says that "...the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) The words "the love of" make a huge difference; money itself is not the problem, but rather the love of money.
Good point. I wish I could update my post. Hopefully the gist of the point I was making is still communicated.
I'm a full-time writer, and I've been living off savings for the past eighteen months writing a new book. Thanks to copyright, I can reasonably expect to earn enough money once my book is published to stay afloat financially, and to tackle additional projects.
:-)
I agree. I'd imagine a lot of the "profit is bad" comments come from the teenage populous. I'm not trying to discriminate against age, but I used to think money was the root of all evil when I was younger. When I turned 20 and wanted to get married, it became apparent to me very quickly that no woman wanted to marry a guy who couldn't support a family. I then checked the "root of all evil" quote and found it was from the Bible, and it actually says "money is the root of all kinds of evil" not "all evil".
If you still need convincing, go to your local library and check out "Just for Fun" by Linus Torvalds. In it he does a pretty good job of explaning the pros/cons of IP rights in the latter part of the book. For those of you who've moved past your aversion towards capitalism, you can go to a bookstore and buy it instead, like I did.
Gotta run. I'm 34 now, married, and my wife and son need me to spend some time with them
There's an article over at Motley Fool that gives some insight into the minds of investors on this issue:
...on Friday, The SCO Group postponed filing its fourth-quarter earnings report until December 22. The reason: To allow time to hammer out the details of its $50 million private placement.
While the company insists this would not affect its prior guidance for revenues of $22 million to $25 million, it does seem strange that a public company would have problems with what looks to be a relatively routine process. For short sellers, this is a textbook clue that there may be internal disarray or perhaps, even some finagling.
I guess today's post by Linus will also help investors get out while the gettin's good.
It undoes much of the damage caused by copyrights, which might have been bearable 25 years ago when the biggest issues were cassete tapes and xerox machines, but in the information age will just not work.
Then what do you propose? I want something to protect my work, and allow me to profit from it whether that be financial gain, street cred' from my peers, or any other profit motive.
Any ideas?
It's not just a crazy idea that some lefty Commie hippie dreamed up in a drug-induced stupor.
So if Darl calls that notion unconstitutional, he is actually attacking the U.S. code as it stands today.
Clear. Concise. Accurate. Funny. That's why people trust and love Linus Torvalds. He is the uber-geek that so many of us aspire to be like.
I used to use smoothwall, but switched to the forked project IPCop. Some of the original developers forked away from smoothwall because of the founder's desire to mix open source with a business model that conflicted with the project. I was having problems with smoothwall and updates, which prompted me to switch to IPCop. I've been happy ever since.
Anyone else got opinions on Smoothwall vs. IPCop?